Is Sola Scriptura ever really practiced?

[Ani_Ibi]

mozart-250:

Entirety means that the Bible not only contains the written word of God, it is the written word of God.

And that my friend is an example of the problem at hand. Without the Church’s authority to interpret, everyone has their own opinion about what things mean and they are forced to twist language to describe what cannot be described – in other words a logical inconsistency.

What makes your definition of the Word of God reliable when it contradicts thousands of years of scholarly research and just plain revelation?

The Word of God = Logos = the Second Person of God = Jesus

Jesus is not a book. He is a Person. I post this link about five times a day. Sometimes I wonder if anyone bothers reading it.

:crying:

 

[kaycee]

A pillow magisterium?

Pillow Talk!

 

[pneuma07]

Oh gosh if your reasoning is logically correct and cohesive, then it can be applied to other areas where we deal with institutions that are capable of being wrong.QUOTE]

There is a remarkable difference, I’d say. In other areas the warning " Trust me, my friend: you cannot trust me too much" can be fair and even praiseworthy. So a good doctor will tell me, eg something like: " I tell you the truth, this solution fails in about 10% of the patients".

It can be the same in any other situation when I am told " I tell you the truth, my perfomance has this or that limit". It’s OK, there is no circularity.

But when does it become circular ? If I say " I tell you the truth, (and I accept you only if you believe me): I am not able to give you the truth".

 

[BobCatholic]

A pillow magisterium?

Well, that explains all the theological pillow fights among our seperated brethren

 

[NPS]

But you can start with the Bible and (under the tutelage and guidance of the church) form your beliefs and opinions from reading the Bible.

So…A person can be orally taught by other human beings working from the traditional beliefs of a group of people known as a “church” and then read the bible and form beliefs and call that “Sola Scriptura”?

This will sound worse than I intend it, but…You’ve got to be kidding me.:whacky:

 

[NPS]

Originally Posted by NPS
Not too long ago, I saw a popular pastor on television going over the days subject (i’ll leave out the subject so we don’t start discussing it) and he just basically “explained” “true” “christian” “teaching” using an occassional bible verse to support his sermon. He promotes himself and his church as “sola scriptura”. An evangelical friend of mine, who asked me to watch the show, touts the pastor as “He only uses the bible! What he teaches comes straight from the bible.” I think this is a good example of the difficulties of the idea of SS. As I said earlier, it really seems to me to be only a phrase used to prop up one’s beliefs.

If anyone can give me some insight on how it is actually practiced I would appreciate it. Right now I can’t see why it shouldn’t be renamed “Myowna Scriptura”.

But how do you know that this popular pastor started with his own beliefs and opinions and forced the Bible to fit his beliefs and opinions rather than the opposite. I don’t know this to be the case. In fact being a Christian who would rather believe the positive about other Christians rather than the negative (including y’all) I would start with the opposite assumption on this unnamed popular pastor.

It would seem to me that unless you know this to be the case, you are making a premature judgement.

Because the issue was one which has no clear teaching or example from the bible. He HAD to “explain” what was “meant” to the audience. Another person who subscribes to the SS idea could just as well have taught the opposite.

I really don’t understand how the* idea* of SS can be practically applied. Is there any SS proponent here who can enlighten us on it’s practical application?

 

[Afterburned6387]

I just wanted to make a comment on the History of Sola Scriptura

As a methodology, it really has its origins in the Reformation Era. It is based on a word known as “exegesis,” which, as defined by those in the Reformation, was a way of interpreting scripture by assuming that words had only their usual meanings as the language would have had in everyday conversation. Methodological Relativism was attempted at many points in the process (with varying degrees of success), which is an attempt to “bracket,” or, set aside personal biases or theological preferences in observing the text. It is the same technique that is currently used by Anthropologists in determining what a culture thought or believed.

In essence, it is an attempt to isolate the bible apart from all other influences, and let it speak for itself, in a scientific and (relatively) unbiased method.

As currently the only written record of the teachings of the Apostles, I can’t really find fault with such a methodology, even if it is new, because I can’t get over the inkling that somewhere down through the years, in all the scandals, in all the forgeries, and all the improprieties (And impieties) of the RCC, that somewhere some things got added in that didn’t belong. Sola Scriptura is the only relatively scientific way to go about uncovering what the Apostles actually believed, from their own lips.

When you do this, you don’t so much as find a theology just jump out at you, but (and as an Engineer, i can speak with some authority on this idea) you build up a set of constraints, or mutually inviolable ideas. From this set of constraints, it becomes the responsibility of the interpreter to try and piece together a theology from these.

In the history of the Reformation, many church historians cite John Calvin as the man who did this “piecing together,” the exact quote goes something like: “Martin, Zwingli and others may have cut the stones of the Reformation, but it was Calvin who polished them, and built them into the Faith”

Calvin was a man of unprecedented exegetical and logical skill. He was trained at the most prestigious law school in France, and even was trained to become a Priest (though he only achieved a “monkhood” so to speak). Thus, these are the reasons why I find Calvinism (not just the 5 points, but the entirety of his teachings), to be some of the most scripturally consistent, and personally convincing.

That said, I am by no means in complete agreement with him, but that goes in another thread.

 

[Teflon93]

I just wanted to make a comment on the History of Sola Scriptura

As a methodology, it really has its origins in the Reformation Era. It is based on a word known as “exegesis,” which, as defined by those in the Reformation, was a way of interpreting scripture by assuming that words had only their usual meanings as the language would have had in everyday conversation. Methodological Relativism was attempted at many points in the process (with varying degrees of success), which is an attempt to “bracket,” or, set aside personal biases or theological preferences in observing the text. It is the same technique that is currently used by Anthropologists in determining what a culture thought or believed.

In essence, it is an attempt to isolate the bible apart from all other influences, and let it speak for itself, in a scientific and (relatively) unbiased method.

As currently the only written record of the teachings of the Apostles, I can’t really find fault with such a methodology, even if it is new, because I can’t get over the inkling that somewhere down through the years, in all the scandals, in all the forgeries, and all the improprieties (And impieties) of the RCC, that somewhere some things got added in that didn’t belong. Sola Scriptura is the only relatively scientific way to go about uncovering what the Apostles actually believed, from their own lips.

When you do this, you don’t so much as find a theology just jump out at you, but (and as an Engineer, i can speak with some authority on this idea) you build up a set of constraints, or mutually inviolable ideas. From this set of constraints, it becomes the responsibility of the interpreter to try and piece together a theology from these.

In the history of the Reformation, many church historians cite John Calvin as the man who did this “piecing together,” the exact quote goes something like: “Martin, Zwingli and others may have cut the stones of the Reformation, but it was Calvin who polished them, and built them into the Faith”

Calvin was a man of unprecedented exegetical and logical skill. He was trained at the most prestigious law school in France, and even was trained to become a Priest (though he only achieved a “monkhood” so to speak). Thus, these are the reasons why I find Calvinism (not just the 5 points, but the entirety of his teachings), to be some of the most scripturally consistent, and personally convincing.

That said, I am by no means in complete agreement with him, but that goes in another thread.

If Calvin intended only exegesis, why did he claim to be channeling Christ?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

As a methodology, it really has its origins in the Reformation Era. It is based on a word known as “exegesis,” which, as defined by those in the Reformation, was a way of interpreting scripture by assuming that words had only their usual meanings as the language would have had in everyday conversation.

exegesis 1619, from Gk. exegeisthai “explain, interpret,” from ex- “out” + hegeisthai “to lead, guide.”

You will see that the etymology of the word exegesis assumes that, in fact, scripture does not have ‘the usual meanings as the language would have had in everyday conversation.’ In fact, scripture needs guides for interpretation.

Moreover, as the next excerpt shows, the notion that ‘self-sufficiency and clarity’ of Scripture did not originate in the Reformation, but in the Early Church:

…The early Reformers were wont to claim that the genuine text of the inspired and canonical books is self-sufficient and clear. This contention does not owe its origin to the sixteenth century. The words of Origen (De princip., IV), St. Augustine (De doctr. christ., I-III), and St. Jerome (ad Paulin., ep. liii, 6, 7) show that similar views existed among the sciolists in the early age of the Church… Read more…

Now, let us be responsible in looking at to whom any kind of book may or may not have been ‘self-sufficient and clear.’ The folks who could read back then were educated folks. They would have been holy men, politicians, wealthy businessmen. They were not paupers, slaves, labourers.

‘Self-sufficient and clear’ to holy men, politicians, wealthy businessmen was an entirely different thing from ‘self-sufficient and clear’ to paupers, slaves, labourers. In other words, folks who were educated and therefore literate had an advantage over folks who were not educated and therefore not literate.

The following should be read with a sense of irony:

The exegetical results flowing from the supposed clearness of the Bible may be inferred from the fact that one century after the rise of the Reformation Bossuet could give to the world two volumes entitled, “A History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches”. A Protestant theologian, S. Werenfels, sets forth the same truth in a telling epigram:

Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque,
Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua

which may be rendered in an English paraphrase:
Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind;
Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

Methodological Relativism was attempted at many points in the process (with varying degrees of success), which is an attempt to “bracket,” or, set aside personal biases or theological preferences in observing the text.

I am afraid we cannot accept merely your own summary of this methodology. There is not enough information in what you say for us to even understand it. Could you please provide a relevant excerpt and link? Thank you.

Afterburned6387:

It is the same technique that is currently used by Anthropologists in determining what a culture thought or believed.

However, in interpreting the Bible, just determining what a culture thought or believed is insufficient. It is true that the writers of Scripture wrote from specific historical, linguistic, and cultural contexts. So some degree of historical, linguistic, and cultural expertise must be applied.

However, God, by inspiring these writers was also speaking to all people always and everywhere. And so it is important to examine whom God is inspiring to interpret what was written in the Holy Books. For that mission, Jesus appointed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit Himself protects the Magisterium from error.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

In essence, it is an attempt to isolate the bible apart from all other influences, and let it speak for itself, in a scientific and (relatively) unbiased method.

Bibles do not speak. To say that Bibles speak is to deploy the reader-response or affective fallacy. Because it is not the Bible speaking which occurs. It is the ‘message’ that individual readers impute to the Bible which occurs. In other words, it is really the minds of the readers and their myriad life-specific contexts which speak. Each reader-response cannot speak for all people always and everywhere.

Afterburned6387:

As currently the only written record of the teachings of the Apostles, I can’t really find fault with such a methodology,

OK, you can’t. Point taken. So I will examine the weakness of your methodology for you.

The weakness of a unilaterally historical-analysis method is that it is an authorial or intentional fallacy. A work says more than what an author intends it to say. The authorial fallacy is the claim that a work says no more than what an author intends it to say.

Moerover, what a work says is given character as well as delimited by the language and regional dialect in which it is written. In other words, formalistic aspects of the work exist independently of the author’s intent.

Moreover what a work says is also influenced by the historical, linguistic, and cultural context in which readers find themselves. This, taken alone, would be the reader-response or affective fallacy. However, taken as part of other interpretive approaches, it includes the fact that God was a contributor to the authorial team and that God was speaking to all people always and everywhere.

There are numerous other approaches to interpreting Scripture which should also be included. Gadamer spoke of the ‘merging of horizons’ which occurs when a plurality of viewpoints are taken. This is a synthesizing approach. A both/and approach.

Protestant hermeneutics have a recurring flaw which is that they almost always take an analytical approach. An either/or approach. They take things out of context. This is the fallacy of false dichotomy. An interpretation does not have to take one approach or another approach. An interpretation can take many approaches at the same time.

However, even if Protestant hermeneutics were to eventually clue into Gadamer’s ‘merging of the horizons’ they still lack the God-given authority to interpret. Why? Because they are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Only the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

even if it is new, because I can’t get over the inkling that somewhere down through the years, in all the scandals, in all the forgeries, and all the improprieties (And impieties) of the RCC, that somewhere some things got added in that didn’t belong.

You can’t get over it. Point taken. So let me put these Catholic frailties in persective for you.

Catholics are, like anyone else, prone to error. Even popes are prone to error – except when teaching from the Magisterium. As I said, the Holy Spirit protects the Magisterium from error.

As for scandals, forgeries, and improprieties: the Protestant spectrum was not immune from those. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit does not protect Protestant magisteria from error.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Sola Scriptura is the only relatively scientific way to go about uncovering what the Apostles actually believed, from their own lips.

If Scripture truly is ‘sufficient and clear’ of its own accord to all who read it, then what need is there for science in interpreting it?

This is where Sola Scripture falls down. In order to apply science to interpreting Scripture, the interpreter has to be trained in science. Thus you automatically have two classes of interpreters: the trained interpreter and the untrained interpreter.

What does this mean? It means that Protestants, although they will not admit it, have their own interpretive traditions, their own magisteria, and their own priesthood. This institutional power is applied to interpreting Scripture.

Therefore Sola Scriptura is no longer Sola Scriptura. It cannot be practised. It is now scripture with traditions. Since there are many translations afoot among Reformers, then it becomes scriptures with traditions. A far cry from only scripture.

Moreover, we have two scientific camps competing for authority in interpreting what the Apostles taught. We have those who sat at the feet of the Apostles themselves and those who stumbled upon the scene 1500 years later.

Even an anthropologist would interview those closest to a culture first. Yet Protestants rarely do this. A frequent complaint among Evangelicals themselves is that the Church Fathers are not consulted enough.

Former Evangelical Theological Society President Francis Beckwith spoke of this problem two years before he gave up trying to hold onto the untenable notion of Sola Scriptura and crossed the Tiber:

What John Paul II Can Teach Evangelicals

…Although these [Protestant] traditionalists see themselves as upholding the creeds of Christendom… they rarely consult the Fathers or the Great Doctors of the Church and avail themselves of the reasoning that gave rise to the creeds they seek to protect…

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

When you do this, you don’t so much as find a theology just jump out at you, but (and as an Engineer, i can speak with some authority on this idea) you build up a set of constraints, or mutually inviolable ideas.

I too am an engineer. What I know about engineering is that you don’t approach a problem with the intention of pushing through a concept. You step back, look at the evidence, do the math, and put a price tag on it. This is exactly what you are not doing.

In any case, how can an engineer speak with authority on scriptural interpretation?

Afterburned6387:

From this set of constraints, it becomes the responsibility of the interpreter to try and piece together a theology from these.

You said that one constraint is the mutual inviolability of ideas. I have already demonstrated that Sola Scriptura and the following central ideas holding up Sola Scriptura are mutually violable:

• Sola Scripture is the only or final or infallible source of doctrine;
• Scripture is ‘sufficient and clear’ of itself and therefore can be interpreted by anyone.
• Myriad folks cannot read or do not have the leisure time to learn how to read or to actually read if they know how to read.
• The Protestant denominations are up to their eyeballs in traditions, magisteria, and priests whose most important function is to interpret Scripture.
• Protestant priestly interpreters ignore first-hand witnesses.
• Protestant interpretive methodology ignores fallacious self-justification; leaves God’s authorship out of the picture entirely; and leaves Jesus’s delegation of authority to the Catholic Church out of the picture entirely.
  continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

In the history of the Reformation, many church historians cite John Calvin as the man who did this “piecing together,” the exact quote goes something like: “Martin, Zwingli and others may have cut the stones of the Reformation, but it was Calvin who polished them, and built them into the Faith”

Please, if you are not going to accord us the simple courtesy of providing links to your reference material, I don’t see the point in your bringing this up. The threads on this forums are meant to be discussions. How can this be a discussion if you deny us the opportunity to verify your claims?

Afterburned6387:

Calvin was a man of unprecedented exegetical and logical skill.

So was Luther. So, for that matter is Pope Benedict XVI.

Afterburned6387:

He was trained at the most prestigious law school in France, and even was trained to become a Priest (though he only achieved a “monkhood” so to speak). Thus, these are the reasons why I find Calvinism (not just the 5 points, but the entirety of his teachings), to be some of the most scripturally consistent, and personally convincing.

This is an ad hominem consideration. You are saying that you believe what he says because he is who he is. The believability of what he says should rest on its internal logic and on the truth of its premises. In fact, there is no internal logic to Calvin’s teachings. Moreover his premises are false.

end of post

 

[Teflon93]

I too am an engineer. What I know about engineering is that you don’t approach a problem with the intention of pushing through a concept. You step back, look at the evidence, do the math, and put a price tag on it. This is exactly what you are not doing.

In any case, how can an engineer speak with authority on scriptural interpretation?

You said that one constraint is the mutual inviolability of ideas. I have already demonstrated that Sola Scriptura and the following central ideas holding up Sola Scriptura are mutually violable:

• Sola Scripture is the only or final or infallible source of doctrine;
• Scripture is ‘sufficient and clear’ of itself and therefore can be interpreted by anyone.
• Myriad folks cannot read or do not have the leisure time to learn how to read or to actually read if they know how to read.
• The Protestant denominations are up to their eyeballs in traditions, magisteria, and priests whose most important function is to interpret Scripture.
• Protestant priestly interpreters ignore first-hand witnesses.
• Protestant interpretive methodology ignores fallacious self-justification; leaves God’s authorship out of the picture entirely; and leaves Jesus’s delegation of authority to the Catholic Church out of the picture entirely.
  continued…

You may be an engineer (as am I), but are you an Engineer?

Surely the capital letter means something!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You may be an engineer (as am I), but are you an Engineer? Surely the capital letter means something!

Oh! Now that you mention it I have no capital letter!

:crying:

 

[Crumpy]

I wonder not only whether we can find somewhere SS actually practiced, but even where can we find the concept itself exactly defined, given that it should exclude a Magisterium ( or it should not, maybe, according to some definitions ). Just an example from Wikipedia:

[don’t know why, the text from the previous post, the Wikipedia definition, did not carry in here.]

This particular definition almost appears a catholic strawman:
to declare ( authoritatively ?) the perspicuity and self-interpreting nature of Scripture, IMHO, challenges both common experience
and …Scripture itself. I am sure there must be definitions which are far more tenable than this one. So I’d like to ask our Protestant members:
what is, according to your personal views, the real definition of SS,
as practiced by your denomination or by yourself ?

PS I am aware of the relatively recent distinction between SOLA Scriptura and SOLO Scriptura. Here we have an explanation of the seemingly irreconcileable contrast between the two
www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html -
While the critique of SOLO we find in this article by a “SOLAScripturaist” is largely and almost amazingly similar to traditional critiques of SOLA, this makes the whole matter even more difficult to cope with, at least for those outside reformed traditions.

Well, boys and girls. Hang on to your hats. Defined as in the preceding, please refer to:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Mary: The Church at the Source, paperback, Ignatius Press, 1997

Page 40: “Scripture is interpreted by Scripture. Scripture interprets itself.”

Let’s see…hmmmm… Joseph Who? Oh yeah, Pope Benedict XVI.

Not only that, but he goes on:

“Attentive reading to Scripture’s own internal self-interpretation is very characteristic of stand by now…] Redemptoris Ma**ter.” And, that would be, of course, by John Paul II.

Now, settle down, class is not over. A moment before this, Benedict referred to all this as a “methodological form” meaning that it is a tool to be used, but surely as the last Council pointed out, not the last word.

You all should know by now (see Benedict’s comments about historical-critical method in his great volume Jesus of Nazareth) that Benedict loves scripture, particularly the thoughtful analysis of it, with regard to tradition and history.

Sola Scriptura, in my opinion, in the usual way that it is referred to, is a heresy against Scripture, the staunch belief in the selective reading of scripture, and not anything else. Anytime I have heard anybody actually invoke SS, that is what it has turned out to be. Recall, for example, the temptations of Jesus in the desert by the devil.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am aware of the relatively recent distinction between SOLA Scriptura and SOLO Scriptura.

There is no such thing as Solo Scriptura. I’ve already explained this at length in post 14 on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2486799&postcount=14
* *

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am wondering Crumpy if you would be so kind as to give us the context from where prooftexted your excerpts?